You should really consider buying some tits the miracle grow isn't working babe sorry

Damn, poor girl, her reputation / NAME is dirty for life…. Her childrens children will someday see this ! Hopefully she dont go committing suicide & shit

Did anyone call her? phone work?

As Marc documented inaseriesof posts, "Is Anybody Down?" had a sleazy relationship with "Takedown Laywer" "David Blade III," who purported to be a lawyer who would help you get your picture off of the site for a few hundred bucks. Marc posted convincing evidence, with which I concurred, supporting the conclusions that (1) "David Blade" is not an attorney, (2) there is no "David Blade," and (3) "David Blade" is most likely Craig Brittain himself, who registered both the "Is Anybody Down?" and "Takedown Lawyer" sites. In other words, it's a wire fraud and extortion scheme.

Hilarity ensued. But now Craig Brittain is angry. Very angry. And in addition to Marc Randazza and your ob'nt servant, he knows exactly who is to blame.

I earn a modest living. I give all of my earnings to my family and to Chance [ed.: that's Chance Trahan, his partner in the site], except for maintenance expenses for this website. Furthermore, I really hate this job and I do not do it for revenge, to hurt people, etc., I do it because Barack Obama is the second worst President in US history (second only to Jimmy Carter). The job market is really screwed up. A talented guy like me is easily worth seven figures or more in a good economy (if Randazza’s worth $2.5 million, I’m worth at least $8 million).

To be fair to Craig Brittain, this isn't much stupider than what I've been seeing on my Twitter feed all day for the past twelve months about politics.

(That quote is part of a screed that Craig posted on "Is Anybody Down?", thoughtfully gathered by our commenters and hosted here. You can go to the site to read it in the original if you must, but I warn you those are some disturbed people.)

In fact, Barack Obama may not bear sole responsibility for Craig Brittain being reduced to making money off of humiliating women for the amusement of the sort of subnormals who aspire to bury women in their crawlspaces. Craig Brittain might face other impediments to those seven figures — for instance, the fact that he's a convicted felon. (Adam discovered through diligent research methods and tipped me to it.) Now, being a convicted felon doesn't make you a bad person, necessarily. People make mistakes. Some convictions are unjust. The system grinds people up, and many criminal laws are totalitarian. I'm just saying — employers are judgmental about felons, and Barack Obama may not be the sole impediment to Craig Brittain not being a millionaire yet.

The Prez might skate for other reasons, too. For one thing, Craig has problems keeping his story straight. That's often an impediment to flourishing. Let's look at some examples.

Who is "David Blade?"

"David Blade" — the "Takedown Lawyer" who offered to get your pic down from Craig's site for a fee — is the hook to this story. Without him, "Is Anybody Down?" would just be another site for Cheeto-and-hand-lotion scented misogynists, and Marc and I might not have noticed.

Who is David? Is David a lawyer? Craig's different different answers. Writing to me, he's claimed that "David Blade" is a real lawyer using a pseudonym to protect his family:

David Blade is an attorney who provides the same sort of services available on websites like dmca.com. Mediated/mitigated takedowns. . . . David Blade operates to remove content on behalf of clients via mediated/mitigated takedown as an independent third party. I have zero desire to remove the content – ideally, posts would never be removed from my website. However, some people go to drastic measures when their pictures are posted. David Blade's services are a safety measure – a provision for people who would hire lawyers or do more drastic things like crime or suicide. . . . The reason for his condition of anonymity is the number of death threats that are associated with our website. He has multiple children and a primary vocation to handle. He doesn't have time to deal with lunatics who endanger his safety and the safety of his family or his business. I used to get tons of death threats and hatemail – which was the reason when Dave offered me a deal, I fully agreed.

In email exchanges with Adam, Craig Brittain's been cagey and refused to commit specifically:

I deny and do not acknowledge anything that you've said to be the truth, and I have not done anything wrong nor criminal. Have a coke and a smile and go fuck yourself.

But the next day, in emails to Marc Randazza, Craig Brittain eventually lost track of his story and said this:

David Blade is actually Eric Chanson.

But wait a minute. Eric Chanson? That's the guy that's he's simultaneously railing about, both at the "Takedown Lawyer" site and the "Is Anybody Down?" site.

Please beware of Eric Chanson who runs several copycat domains and is engaged in cybersquatting. We are currently unable to assist you in removing content from his .net and .org domains that he is using for cybersquatting purposes. These are not the domains of the original owners and thus they cannot comply with removal requests.

The copycat versions of our domain isanybodydown.net and isanybodydown.org are owned by Eric S. Chanson.

Eric Chanson, the Great White Whale of Craig's frustrated rantings — that's who he now claims is the college friend who works with him, who has a family he is protecting, who is a lawyer.

It's not just that he's lost track of his story. He's lost track of his story in a way that doesn't make a lick of sense.

Do People Object To Their Pictures on "Is Anybody Down?", Or Not?

Craig Brittain also can't keep straight whether or not anybody objects to having their names, contact information, and pictures posted for the benefit of the dispirited gruntings of his coterie of losers.

On the one hand, his story is now that everyone consents to being on the site. In his latest screed:

Everyone pictured on this website consented to appear on here. Anything else is total nonsense. They took the pictures themselves. They transmitted them via Fair Use. The submitters agreed to the terms of submission prior to sending them.

To Marc, he says something similar:

You won't find a single claimant against my website (isanybodydown.com). I comply with removal requests sent through proper channels. We haven't had a single complaint since the now-Takedown Hammer service was added.

But wait. This is a new story. Last night, his story to me was that he isn't responsible:

You can think what you want to. Extortion would be if I threatened to release photos of people unless they paid me. I do not engage in extortion. I post photos I receive from submitters, meaning that I am not responsible for their submissions to begin with, and I am simply posting on behalf of the submitters who hold the entirety of the responsibility for their submissions. I reserve the right to remove content for any reason, or no reason at all.

Moreover, contrary to his "we haven't had a single complaint" line to Marc, he told me that I should know that he's doing nothing wrong because he's been "thoroughly investigated." He clarified:

Numerous people claim to have filed reports with the FBI and Police. I have reason to believe that we have been investigated.

Moreover, the entire "Takedown Lawyer" pitch relies on people being unhappy that their picture is on the site:

Hello! I’m the Takedown Lawyer and so far, I’ve had 42 clients come to me to have their pictures and information removed from Is Anybody Down, all of whom were a success!

. . .

I attended college with the administrator of this website. We are on a first name basis and regularly converse.

Our big disagreement is this website – He tells me that he is doing nothing wrong and that the client’s pictures should stay up forever.

I tell him in response that he should be ashamed and should remove all of them.

In response, as a compromise, I’ve agreed to pay to advertise here in order to assist people who are at the point of hiring someone to have their pictures removed from sites like these.

Even now, after he's started to send the "Takedown Lawyer" down the memory hole, he's still running an ad for the "Takedown Hammer" that presupposes that people want their pictures taken down:

Hello. Do you need an experienced team that can help remove content from this website or other websites?

Choose Takedown Hammer.

We have issued over 90 successful removal requests for this website so far and a total of over 500 removals from various internet websites. We are professionals. If you want content removed, Takedown Hammer is the way to go.

Moreover, even though Craig Brittain now claims that everyone on the site "consented" to being there, he's previously run a bounty system to get nudes:

Hello. Due to fan suggestion, we’ve decided to add a bounty system, and some new rules/reiterations of old rules to go with it.

The bounty system will enable you to submit people who you are unable to find nudes of and see if the members of this site can find their nudes for cash.

. . .

As always, submitters accept 100% of the liability for any legal, civil, social, etc. consequences related to their submissions.

Finally, Craig's story just can't be reconciled with the fact that until this story broke his site featured posts ridiculing women for demanding or begging that their pictures be taken down, like those that Adam documented, or the many still available through Google cache.

Once again, Craig Brittain just can't keep his story straight about his site.

Craig Brittain can't keep his story straight about Marc Randazza, either. If you ask him now, he says Marc's a terrible, dishonest person:

Marco Randazza’s claims are false. He has a history of lying, contradicting himself and attempting to extort money via copyright trolling.

Yet Craig's emails with Marc — either in his own name or as "David Blade" — are characterized by relentless attempts to hire Marc and give him money:

First, as "David Blade":

If you are the same Randazza Group that is currently operating on behalf of Bullyville in pursuance of a class action lawsuit against a named Defendant Eric S. Chanson and Blue Mist Media,

He has infringed upon my trademark as well as the trademark of several other website owners who are interested in joining the class action lawsuit.

Please contact me at your earliest convenience.

These clients would like to be represented by your firm against the named Eric S. Chanson and Blue Mist Media and all involved parties.

Then, as Craig Brittain:

TakedownLawyer specifically referred those people to you about Eric Chanson's infringement of the isanybodydown.com name (cybersquatting), so that they can reference isanybodydown.net, isanybodydown.org, pinkmeth.net, pinkmeth.org, 1upem.net, 1upem.org and takemedown.tk as part of your pending class action lawsuit. You want those clients, right?

Because I'll pay you to do it. A lot more than whoever is paying you to chase a Red Herring, snowball-in-hell-case.

What's your number? We'll talk.

So: is Marc terrible, or is he someone awesome that Craig wants to hire? Or did Craig just try to bribe him into silence, fail miserably, and collapse into a pout?

By the way, Craig Brittain also has this to say about Marc Randazza:

He has also in the past attempted to extort Crystal Cox, a self-identified lesbian blogger as well as numerous others.

Craig Brittain's showing himself to be a con man — just not a very good one. He's a con many who is trying, however clumsily, to monetize hatred of women.

This story has legs. More and more lawyers are answering Marc's call for pro bono assistance in dealing with these people. If victims come forward, appropriate referrals can be made to law enforcement. The "David Blade" scam was stupid. It was clumsy. It was mediocre. It was the hook that may transform routine internet dishonesty into a case that will get attention.

I appreciate continuing efforts and contributions to the investigation, and will continue to forward them to Marc and the growing team for appropriate use.

Second Update: I have been terribly remiss in not posing this deathless line from Adam. He offered in an email response to Craig, after Craig threatened to assemble a legal dream team to go after Marc because he "subjected me to emotional, mental and financial distress":

Is Mr. Blade unavailable to represent you?

Another update: I fished this comment out of the spam filter. It comes from the same IP as Craig/David:

132 Responses

Blaming Chanson makes perfect sense. If he's having a feud with the guy, what better way to kill two birds with one stone (not getting into trouble yourself; causing trouble for someone else) than blaming it on him? It even makes sense in the context of trying to hire Randazza to go after Chanson.

Let me preface my question by noting that I am an attorney who practices dirt law in a very insulated county in the South, thus, I have not been forced to delve very deep into personal jurisdiction issues in the recent past, i.e., since law school.

I would imagine that searching for images through Craigslist, which I understand requires the selection of a certain geographic region, and then collecting a photograph submitted by someone living in that region would likely be sufficient action for that region to gain personal jurisdiction over you. On the other hand, I would assume that merely posting an image that may have been taken in a certain region would not be adequate to subject you to that region's courts.

Most likely a court has already answered this question and I am about 10-15 years late to the game.

I can vividly picture some Plaintiff's attorney in a very socially conservative state licking their lips at the thought of getting these boys before one of their juries. Thanks for all of your good work.

Rich: the copout answer is that jurisdiction based on web postings is an emerging area. But in brief, activity calculated to have an impact in a particular area is often taken to create personal jurisdiction in that area. Putting the women's names, hometowns, contact information, etc. seems calculated to cause a specific effect in the places that they live.

Rich: the copout answer is that jurisdiction based on web postings is an emerging area. But in brief, activity calculated to have an impact in a particular area is often taken to create personal jurisdiction in that area. Putting the women's names, hometowns, contact information, etc. seems calculated to cause a specific effect in the places that they live.

Note: I am not the same person as "Rich," and unlike him, IANAL.

If, as Marc Randazza seems to imply, some of these pitures on the site are of minors, wouldn't this be transmitting child pornography across state lines, and, thus, a federal case?

And hey, he finished his stint at Pikes Peak Jr College back in 2004. So in the 4 years of George W Bush, he didn't accomplish anything either according to his own LinkedIn profile, apart from being an "Internet Marketeer", "Consultant" and founding "Hey, Great Website".

IANAL, nor a pornographer (merely an "end-user" as it were), but do these sites have to abide by 18 USC § 2257? Or is the content not explicit enough to qualify? (Sure as hell I'm not about to test the Nannywall here at work to see for myself, and I'm not all that interested in looking when I'm at home, either.)

It looks like someone named Craig Brittain with the same alleged address as "our" Craig here was posting under the username 719x. All his posts are gone but you can see several of his replies when other posters have quoted him.

Apparently he tried to make it as a karaoke DJ at one point. Must be Obama's fault, too, that he sucked at it.

The motor convictions all have the same date. There is vehicular injury along with a bunch of evasions and assault of officers. It feels like he got in trouble and then tried to run away and hide from the consequences. Hm, why does that feel familar?

(Anyone who's been around this blog knows that we can't put too 100% faith in resisting arrest and assaulting a cop, but it's pretty hard to fake passing on the shoulder.)

That karaoke thread is precisely what we would expect. "I'm not unethical." Why is it always the scoundrels who say they have perfect morals? Followed up by "well my servers aren't in America anyway."

To this layperson, it looks as if there was a racing contest, during which a dozen+ traffic violations occurred (high speeds, running red lights, passing on right, etcetc), and perhaps an attempt to drive off elude then assaulting the officer when caught. Someone got injured, too, although there's not enough info given to determine who was injured, whether a bystander, passenger, the officer or ??

Granted some of those charges may have been "throw everything we can at him and then see what sticks enough to be negotiating material" puffery. The felony guilty plea was for "Vehicular Eluding-w/injury".

It's from 2002, plenty far back enough that if I were hiring, I would give serious consideration to an explanation along the lines of "I was young and stupid and immortal back then and learned my lesson". That's assuming the applicant has shown that he really has matured and so on and so forth since then. This guy hasn't.

His LinkedIn profile contains the anybodydown website amongst the current activities. So yeah, he's making it a bit difficult for people to find reason to hire him (unless they like that kind of thing).

An adult website that promotes real people's nudity = scum and evil, better get it removed!

A bunch of logs and pieces of coal = art.

Most of the stuff you have on me happened between 2002-2003 (when I was barely 18). It's ancient.

Furthermore, before I started the website I run now, I spent ten years applying for work. Everywhere you could think of. You think there's no economic crisis? You're in denial. Go defend some more logs and stay off my porch.

Just to add to the fun it appears that Chance/Craig is leading his own magic crusade against Twitter CEO Dick Costolo. You can find it on Chance's twitter page, or on this brand new one which appears to be custom-made just for hating on Mr. Costolo: https://twitter.com/IHateYouSupport

With the text:
This wiki has been closed. Content dump will be available within 24 hours. Please check back.

I gotta get some real work done today :) Someone else will have to follow up on the LordAkaneon alias, 719x.com, (including a link where Craig as "Owner" is publicizing it) and similar things. Not that there's anything wrong with multiple aliases and such, just that chasing these things down will give us more chances to tie them back to the potentially chargeable activity.

@Dan: you say he got banned from a forum for anti-Semitic posts? Heh. Searching his IP address yields someone several years ago who edited Wikipedia articles on white pride and got banned from online games for racist remarks.

Might not be him, given that most computers' IP addresses change over time, but not impossible.

Nicholas Weaver – it's less a matter of whacking him with the 2257 stick, but if he qualifies under that, there'll be actual contact information held by the record-keeper – which kicks a hole in the "found on Facebook" etc. dodge. (Unless the "user submitting" assumes responsibility, but from reading the thing, I don't think that would be acceptable.)

@Adam – a couple of us are pretty convinced that is actually Craig's IP address both due to comparing some current emails and other sites he has posted on over the years – all the same IP address. This guy is about as clueless as Paris Hilton on a farm.

My favorite part of his comment is when he claims he's spent 10 years applying for work with no luck. Riiiiiiight.

Although I do now wonder if we should start addressing you as Dopehat, Defender of Logs. "Who's that?" "Oh, him? Why that's Dopehat, Defender of Logs. Don't mess with him or he'll make you snort his taint and then give you to the ponies. And you don't even want to know what they're capable of."

Ken: Spoofing IP addresses for TCP connections, such as that needed for a blog comment post, is effectively impossible: You need to match sequence numbers exactly, and those are unpredictable on any properly secure server.

Collectively, the sum is over one million dollars in Big Porn drug money. Mafia money. Blood money. He’s effectively getting paid with the blood of the people who have died at the hands of the mafia.

If Craig Brittain wants to earn that seven-figure income he thinks he so richly deserves, he should stop screwing around on the internet and start writing screenplays for the Lifetime network. That's obviously where his skill set lies.

Now that you've got that $350,000 from Big Porn™, do your faithful readers still need to make their Amazon purchases through your site? Not that it's a problem for me… just askin'. All this talk of Big Porn™ has got me in the mood to purchase Wonderland on DVD.

What's striking me as most interesting about that new trolldown site isn't the content and claims. It's the amazing difference in writing style, grammar, and spelling between that site and CB's other correspondence.

But I — against my better judgement — looked at the trolldown site. I'm now considering the strong possibility that, rather than just a drug-addled loose cannon with a vague Internetty concept of the law, the guy is schizophrenic and actually believes all the weird, disjointed, contradictory things he's saying.* That takes some of the fun out of this; it's rather sad, in fact. I hope he gets the professional (legal and medical) help I think he needs. But based on some experiences with other schizophrenics, he won't can't do it himself. Maybe his mother will stroll down to the basement, see his computer screen, and make the necessary calls before he does himself too much more damage.

* Not that the two are incompatible. I wouldn't be at all surprised. And it would explain that ten years of unsuccessful alleged job hunting.

It seems to me that if he's whining about hiring lawyers to redress his emotional and financial distress, for the cost of filing a declaratory action suit you could pelt him with interrogatories and requests for admission to settle the questions once and for all. Of course, if you thought serving Carreon was tricky, getting David Blade III served with papers might prove well-nigh impossible…

Look at the way Obama has handled Benghazi-gate. If his presidency has a theme at all it's "The Buck NEVER stops here!" About time somebody returned the favor by blaming things on Obama, even if it took a scumbag to do it. Craig and Obama deserve each other.

Besides, maybe Obama will give him a job with one of this year's groups-to-replace-ACORN.

The dipshit still has his old Myspace page up – and he wonders why no one in their right mind will hire him. A quick Google search brings up all the rest of the garbage necessary to turn off any decent employer. Seriously this guy couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel and he think’s he’s worth a 7 digit salary because he has some magic 10” banana? That is if he isn’t lying about his "size" as well.

Is it just me or am I “C”ing a trend here Crystal Cox, Charles Carreon, Craig Brittain, Chance Trahan.

You're not looking closely enough.

Ken often writes about The Streisand Effect, named after Barbara Streisand. Now he and Marc Randazza are writing about Isanybodydown.com. Marc Randazza once squared off against in court againstGlenn Beck.

I'm quite sure Ponies figure into this somehow, and it is all — of course — Oama's fault. Does Ken's previous work on behalf of Regretsy tie into this story that centers around Nude photos?

Face it: it's not looking good for Mafia Marc, Ken Dopefat and Adam The New Guy. The cat (or pony?) is out of the bag.

Jack B. has uncovered damning evidence against you. I have immediately unsubbed and unfollowed. Your Big Porn-funded Scrooge McDuck-like vault of gold coins will be small consolation when you're in hell.

@jack b: Oh, thank you for that pure, sweet moment of comedy in an otherwise sad, sad story. That was excellent.

But I’m with Bear. This feels different from the myopic, self-serving Regretsy. It feels different from the bloated superiority of Carrion. Brittain’s writing is evidence of a disordered mind. And mental illness would explain his inability to ascertain the seriousness of his predicament, his preoccupation with racism and blame, his inability to empathize, and his odd, impassioned defense of ‘Dave’. Still, he has caused great harm and is perfectly capable of doing far more.

I bet this story ends with a sad statement from his long tortured parents. Surely by now they've been informed.

think’s he’s worth a 7 digit salary because he has some magic 10” banana? That is if he isn’t lying about his "size" as well.

Obviously you must not have clicked through the links to his "doxxing" by anon that were linked in the comments section on Randazza's blog. There were pics. I clicked on them. I very much wish that I had not.

Anyone have any mind bleach?

Sadly, it would seem that this is one thing he is not lying about. As I see it, proof that there is no such thing as karma.

Which (in)famous lawyer who's been the subject of…oh, about 12 or so blog posts here literally made (and lost) a ton of money from big porn? I mean, is there any bigger porn than Sex.com?

Clearly, the only possible explanation for this is that Charles Carreon's a-trollin' here, thereby wrapping up this particular mystery with a big ol' bow. Either that, or we need to sic this guy onto Carreon for his Big Porn connections. Perhaps he could be drafted to serve papers?

@flip; @jack b: Depression isn't the same as schizophrenia. Different words, different meanings. I bet neither of you would care to trade your depression for schizophrenia so please don't suggest they are the same.

Lol, I'm enjoying watching this play out. I can't wait to watch Brittain get into legal trouble. It will be fun to watch him wait for the inevitable arrest, then wait for arraignment, and then sit back and stress the hell out while he awaits his first (of probably a few) pre-trial hearings.

I'm going to get a beer and watch this unfold over a painfully long period of time for him. He'd be so wise to pull down his shameful (by any judge or jury's standars) website now, but I'm sure he's not smart enough to. Oh the joy of it all… to watch his life ruined as he tries to ruin others.

I am not in any way conflating depression with schizophrenia, nor am I trying to turn this into a dick-measuring contest of "who's crazier"?

My point was that mental illness is not a mitigating factor. Sure, a delusional frame of mind might explain how he came up with some conspiracy theory involving Big Porn and mafia blood money, but it doesn't excuse running what is — in essence — an extortion racket.

So yeah, Craig Brittain might suffer from severe schizophrenia. He might have three or four personality disorders on top of the schizophrenia. He could have the diabeetus, for all we know. But… in addition to that, he's also an amoral scumbag.

@efemmeral – in this case I really don't think this is a situation of mental instability. I think this is a case of self entitled God complex. Craig Brittain, Chase Trahan, and Eric Chanson are all cut from the same cloth – that of insecure little punks who think they are worthy of ruling the world, making millions of dollars, and breaking the law to spread their degratation of women, minorities, Jews, you name it – with no repercussions. They do what they do because they have no empathy and because they hate and objectify women and the only God they worship is money. I doubt they would know what to do with a "real" woman if they ever managed to get a hold of one long enough before they ran away screaming.

My point was that mental illness ≠ morally repugnant or illegal behaviour and that implying such continues stigmatism of mental illness. Pretty much every single crank out there uses conspiracy as a way of deflecting attention and criticism.

Furthermore, diagnosis by internet is not exactly legitimate nor fair. To put it in law blog terms: innocent until proven guilty.

Thank you also for suggesting that depression is not as bad as another mental illness. I guess wanting to slit your wrists every day for 20 years is just peachy in comparison to having voices in your head?

Agreed: Mental illness is not a license for malice. Really, as Randazza mentions, Brittain himself is incidental. The goal, set by truly honorable attorneys, is to scuttle this unacceptable business model.

Inconclusive: Kevin just suggested that the, the measuring contest might be the one arena in which Brittian can compete. Coincidently, that happens to be the same contest as Most Batshit Crazy. I suspect he’ll be the winner but let’s not verify this. Deal?

@jess – In my IANAL brain I cannot process the idea that ‘choice’ adequately explains why a person, with a capacity to be otherwise, would choose to be as inept, banal, and useless as Brittian & Co. In darker moments I suspect the ease with which we subscribe to this idea of ‘choice’ provides us with a way to congratulate ourselves for ‘choosing’ to be unlike them and, consequently, superior to them, but I generally return to reaching for organic issues and head trauma to explain these people.

Still, you might be right. By sheer dumb luck I’ve managed to avoid people like that my entire life. I suspect having to interact with this cesspool truly exacts a high price on attorneys.

@flip: Recent advancements in pharmacology have given psychiatrists the blessed means to treat patients previously untreatable, but our cultural response to mental illness is still rooted in the dark ages. I tip my hat to anyone who recognizes their life is likely to be improved with treatment and seeks it – especially men, who suffer the additional burden of intractable, backwater proscriptions against being treated.

It was absolutely legitimate of me to object to this reasoning, "Since depression doesn't cause me to behave like a schizophrenic his (apparent) schizophrenia shouldn't cause him to behave like a schizophrenic". But I’d never offer up a diagnosis; that would surely cause some crazed Internet Lawyer to come for me.

I interact with schizophrenics fairly regularly. I don't think this guy fits there.

Most schizophrenics have "disorganized thought." Tara-style. They're quite convinced they're presenting damning evidence about something when everyone else is going, "WTF?" They tend to use a lot of pronouns that don't refer to anything. "'This thing' has been going on a long time. 'They're' planning to take revenge on 'us.'" etc. It's often a dementing disorder.

Paranoid schizophrenics may be pretty coherent if you don't know what they're saying is crazy, and they're often quite intelligent. But they really believe what they're saying. The story doesn't change when it suits them.

No, I think this guy is a lying sociopath or maybe a narcissist, who really can't cope with the fact that his ability to manipulate people is failing him now. He may be unemployed because he's been able to manipulate people to support him. He spent his house arrest attending community college and playing video games and thought that was a consuming amount of activity to keep up with, so real work may not be something he's interested in.

Since I think I started the whole possible-schizophrenia thing, I guess I should make a last comment.

Culpability: Even though the courts seem to (mostly) disagree with me, I do not think "insanity" should be a defense. The fact that someone was judged "crazy" after the fact doesn't magically make the victims whole.

Lying conman vs. schizophrenic: The two are not incompatible. I have dealt with schizophrenics who decided that — based on their delusional worldviews — it was acceptable and _necessary_ to knowingly commit crimes (in one case, a double murder).

Right up until I saw the trolldown site, I completely agreed with Ken's guess that the clown is just an inept conman. Trolldown included some material that is frighteningly similar to something I saw before; hence the schizophrenia guess. BUT… see above. There's nothing that says he isn't a _schizophrenic_ conman, and certainly nothing that excuses him from the consequences of his actions.

In evaluating the Trolldown site, keep in mind that we have at least two potential authors: Craig Brittain and Chance Trahan. Trahan's comments to me on Twitter last night suggest that he has at least equal control of Trolldown. He may or may not be the author of some content.

1) Does he think the point of your post regarding the art installation at the University of Wyoming was to defend the art?

Personally I read that post as expressing concern over the amount of control the university allows outside actors exert over its speech and expression. They caved to pressure to self-censor, and they lied about it.

2) An adult website that displays the nudity of consenting adults would not be of concern here. There are lots of them!

Perhaps he has missed the fact that what caught so much attention was the exploitation of unwilling victims? And the extortion. And the blatant lies.

3) The fact that his felony conviction happened a decade ago doesn't mean it didn't happen. Certainly people can change, but it's not truthful for him to claim that he's never committed a crime nor been in trouble with the law.

4) He takes his inability to find employment as evidence of an economic crisis. This is not logically sound, any more than the statement "I do have a job, therefore there is no economic crisis."

In his case, I suspect that there are factors other than the recession that have kept him from gainful employment. I certainly wouldn't hire him, would you? How long do you think he could hold down a job at McDonalds?

"subjected me to emotional, mental and financial distress"… Seriously. What about the hundreds of men and women that were subjected to mental, emotional, and financial distress caused by this monster. You can't tell me these people don't walk around everyday hoping and praying that there friends, family, and coworkers do not fond out. And the anxiety and emotional distress when the victim is confronted about their nude photos on the internet??? I don't wanna hear about his emotional, mental, and finacial distress. he deserves every bit of it

[…] Craig's emails also evade — repeatedly — the question of whether David Blade exists, only suggesting that he's done nothing questionable or illegal. Craig, in fact, flatly denies the suggestion that David Blade does not exist. Craig also refused to identify who his new 'legal counsel' was — apparently Mr. Blade is unavailable? However, in stupefying emails to Marc Randazza, Craig claims that David Blade (his college buddy) is his mortal enemy. […]

[…] you should know how much hassle he has caused for me. It is because of this, and his now continual harassment of you, that I say we should sue him for mental distress on your part. I also say we go after that law […]

[…] with the admins so its easy for me to get things done. But recently those meddling kids over at Popehat and LegalSatyricon are creating a whole heap of trouble for me. I think a defamation suit is in […]

[…] with the admins so its easy for me to get things done. But recently those meddling kids over at Popehat and LegalSatyricon are creating a whole heap of trouble for me. I think a defamation suit is in […]

[…] and Blade claimed that he was operating under a pseudonym because of death threats, and Craig claimed that Blade was actually Eric Chanson (who owns a rival 'revenge porn' site), but emails from both Craig Brittain and David Blade were […]